In a post dated December 6, 2007, we discussed the repercussions of a suspected autoimmune illness that was afflicting employees of a hog-processing plant in Minnesota with neurological symptoms. In an update to that story, it was reported recently that two workers at a pork facility in Indiana - which authorities refuse to identify - have developed similar signs that the CDC suspects may be linked to the cases in Minnesota.
Officials are downplaying the incident, and announcing that they are certain the condition is not life-threatening. I am a little confused as to how they can determine that if they do not even know what the diagnosis is. They also stated that the workers are being treated by their own personal physicians, as if that should bring comfort to the general public. Who else would treat them, their personal plumbers?
What is most disturbing, though, is that they insist on keeping the specific plant involved a secret. It seems to me that anyone who works in the industry, in addition to the public as a whole, should be fully informed about all the pertinent facts regarding the investigation. The media once again falls into line as a pawn in the governments agenda to protect corporate interests by mentioning in the article the economic considerations of the pork industry. Yes, the livelihoods of people are important, but the message between the lines is that financial issues outweigh concerns about health risks to workers or consumers of pork products. This story bears watching not only to see if any other workers become ill, but also to evaluate the methods that are used to manipulate and control information regarding the situation.
State probes illness of 2 meat plant workers
By Tom Spalding
tom.spalding@indystar.com
January 17, 2008
Two employees of an unidentified pig slaughterhouse in Indiana are being treated medically for symptoms similar to a suspected neurological illness that sickened 12 workers at a Minnesota pork plant.
The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notified the Indiana Department of Health in mid-December of a potential link, and state officials said today they are still trying to determine if there are any other workers at the plant who used a specific processing technique and might have exposed.
There are 30 hog plants in Indiana, and citing privacy concerns, the state will not reveal the name or location of the Indiana plant.
The illnesses here are not life-threatening, said Elizabeth Hart, a spokeswoman for the Indiana State Department of Health. The employees are seeking medical attention with their personal physicians.
She said it was unclear when those employees got sick, and that health officials in Indianapolis only became aware of the two illnesses during the first week in January. The Indiana workers symptoms included changes in sensation and weakness in their limbs.
"This is very, very new to us," Hart said.
After the Minnesota slaughterhouse illness was reported in December, the CDC looked into slaughtering practices in 25 large pork processing plants in 13 states, and found only two other plants - one in Indiana, the other in Nebraska - that used compressed air to remove pigs brains. Minnesota health officials said the pork plants in all three states, including Indiana, have voluntarily stopped the practice.
The Indiana pork industry employs more than 13,000 people, and generates an estimated $44 million of personal income and $3 billion to the Indiana economy each year, according to a Purdue University report. That same report supports the idea that Indiana is a prime state for pork production and expansion because it has an abundant feed supply, pork processing facilities within the state, available labor force, a large cropland base for manure utilization as fertilizer, and quick access to large consumer markets in Chicago and the East coast.
Gary Jacobson, president of Indiana Packers Corp. in Delphi, said today his company is not the plant involved, but has been in contact with CDC and is trying to stay informed on the issue to update employees.
Any facility that processes meat is going to encounter hazards, which is why safety gear is a must.
"People look like they are suit of armor when they go to work here," Jacobson said. The company has discontinued the practice of harvesting brains until "somebody has some kind of idea" what happened, he said. Harvesting brains are a small part of the practice.
In the Minnesota case, health officials initially suspect the workers were exposed to something in the brain tissue that triggered the illness. Officials are continuing to investigate, but so far they have not identified any viruses or bacteria that could be causing the disease. They have also ruled out chemical toxins.
Five of the 12 workers afflicted were initially diagnosed with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, or CIDP, a rare immune disorder that attacks the nerves and produces tingling, numbness and weakness in the arms and legs, sometimes causing lasting damage. But Minnesota officials later backed away from that diagnosis, saying additional tests showed none of the workers fit the precise diagnosis.
Minnesota state epidemiologist Ruth Lynfield said the discovery of the Indiana illness could help her investigation. That may help us figure out why these workers are getting sick, she said.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080117/LOCAL/801170512/0/NLETTER08
Monday, January 21, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
FDA Gives Green Light to Cloned Food Despite Public Concern
The FDA has given their blessing to the sale and consumption of cloned food products in the United States. Those in the cloning and food processing industry have been on the edge of their seats regarding this ruling, as it is projected to open up a multi-billion dollar market. Despite all the positive public relations regarding the safety of cloned foods, polls show that more than 60% of Americans are not thrilled with the idea and fortunately are not buying into the media blast. Hopefully, Americans will not buy the goods either.
The bottom line for consumers is that the long term effects of eating cloned foods is simply not known, but any honest scientist will tell you that tinkering with nature in this way can potentially lead to dangerous and unpredictable consequences. It is a verified fact that cloned animals have more health problems than those that are naturally bred. So in essence, the FDA is putting their stamp of approval on the consumption of foods made from diseased livestock. This leaves them an open door to justify further use of toxic chemicals, drugs and additives so that the health and safety of cloned foods can be controlled.
Considering their track record of half-truths and pandering to special interest groups, you can be sure that this was not a scientifically objective decision on the FDAs part, especially when you factor in the amount of money at stake. As I always say, just follow the money. As we move closer to a nation and a world where health freedoms are a thing of the past, the control of resources such as the food supply and other natural substances will become increasingly common.
We are to the point where backyard gardens, container gardening, farmers markets and a relationship with a good dairy farmer are becoming essential if you value unadulterated food. Even though most of the country is in the midst of winter, spring is right around the corner. Do your gardening research now and begin to make plans for your organic garden - whether you are a seasoned gardener or a timid beginner - you will be doing one of the best things for your familys health and well-being.And one more thing. Every child should have the opportunity to experience Gardening 101! Be sure to include your children in your gardening adventures and your trips to the farmers markets and dairies. We must realize the importance of teaching our children how to eat and live healthy. Most children have no idea about how vegetables actually make it to the grocery store because they have never seen a garden! Knowing the ins and outs of gardening is a huge step in giving them valuable lessons concerning living naturally and toxin-free in a VERY toxic world.
FDA says clones are safe for food
A long-awaited final report from the Food and Drug Administration concludes that foods from healthy cloned animals and their offspring are as safe as those from ordinary animals, effectively removing the last U.S. regulatory barrier to the marketing of meat and milk from cloned cattle, pigs and goats.
The 968-page "final risk assessment," not yet released but obtained by The Washington Post, finds no evidence to support opponents' concerns that food from clones may harbor hidden risks.
But, recognizing that a majority of consumers are wary of food from clones -- and that cloning could undermine the wholesome image of American milk and meat -- the agency report includes hundreds of pages of raw data so that others can see how it came to its conclusions.
The report also acknowledges that human health concerns are not the only issues raised by the emergence of cloned farm animals.
"Moral, religious and ethical concerns . . . have been raised," the agency notes in a document accompanying the report. But the risk assessment is "strictly a science-based evaluation," it reports, because the agency is not authorized by law to consider those issues.
In practice, it will be years before foods from clones make their way to store shelves in appreciable quantities, in part because the clones themselves are too valuable to slaughter or milk. Instead, the pricey animals -- replicas of some of the finest farm animals ever born -- will be used primarily as breeding stock to create what proponents say will be a new generation of superior farm animals.
When food from those animals hits the market, the public may yet have its say. FDA officials have said they do not expect to require food from clones to be labeled as such, but they may allow foods from ordinary animals to be labeled as not from clones.
Opponents express dismay
Opponents of the approval, including some concerned about the welfare of the clones themselves, expressed dismay upon learning about the FDA's intentions.
Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety, a Washington advocacy group that petitioned FDA to restrict the sale of food from clones, said his group is considering legal action.
"One of the amazing things about this," Mendelson said, "is that at a time when we have a readily acknowledged crisis in our food safety system, the FDA is spending its resources and energy and political capital on releasing a safety assessment for something that no one but a handful of companies wants."
Others countered that public opinion and politics should play no bigger role in the decision on clones than it should in the approval of a drug or a contraceptive.
"In fact, cloned animals have been studied much more than naturally produced animals," said Cindy Tian, who has analyzed milk and meat from clones at the University of Connecticut. "We have more data on them than for any other animal that we eat."
Release of the analysis was slowed for years by several forces, including the dairy industry, concerned about the potential impact on exports of U.S. whey solids, foreign sales of which are growing for use as a protein supplement.
In the past month, as an announcement neared, members of Congress, led by Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), sought to delay approval through legislation.
Trade-related agencies including the Foreign Agricultural Service and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which for years have struggled to get countries to accept U.S. gene-altered crops, also raised red flags.
A final blitz of meetings with FDA officials last week brought grudging acquiescence, insiders said. And it is possible, sources said, that even after the risk analysis is released, there will be calls for farmers to voluntarily refrain from selling products from clones until the trade issues can be resolved.
Challenges to assessing risk
To create its final risk assessment, the FDA gathered data on nearly all of the more than 600 U.S. farm-animal clones produced and hundreds of their offspring, as well as many from overseas. But it faced challenges in the process.
Those animals were made by scientists scattered among various universities and companies using different methods that in many cases were difficult to compare.
Moreover, many of those animals were not just clones but also had genes added to them for projects unrelated to food production.
In those cases, it was difficult for FDA reviewers to decide whether any problems were caused by those animals being clones or by their particular genetic alterations. (The FDA has said it will not approve gene-altered animals as food without additional tests for safety.)
Finally, there was the overarching problem of deciding which measures would best predict whether the food was safe. Most puzzling was whether to take into account the subtle alterations in gene activity, called epigenetic changes, that are common in clones as a result of having just one parent.
In the end, facing the reality that epigenetics have never been a factor in assessing the wholesomeness of food, agency scientists decided to use the same simple but effective standard used by farmers since the dawn of agriculture: If a farm animal appears in all respects to be healthy, then presume that food from that animal is safe to eat.
Scientists inside and outside the agency studied thousands of pages of veterinary reports describing weight, size, organ function, blood characteristics and other measures of clones and offspring. For cattle -- the animals for which the most data exist -- full health assessments were conducted for each of five different stages of the animals' life: fetal, newborn, juvenile, sexually mature, and old.
Newborn cattle often unhealthy
They concluded that newborn cattle are often unhealthy, probably because of epigenetic changes. They are usually extremely overweight and have respiratory, gastrointestinal and immune system problems. (Cloned pigs and goats are mostly healthy from the start.)
But those problems typically disappear within the first weeks or months of life as the animals somehow compensate. And since sick clones would not pass muster with food inspectors any more than sick conventional animals would, they pose no concern, the report says.
Studies of cloned farm animal behavior, including mating behavior, also showed them to be the same as ordinary animals. (One exception: On one farm, clones showed a peculiar preference not for the surrogate mother that gave birth to them but to the animal from which they were cloned.)
Scientists also looked at nutrient levels in meat and milk from a few dozen cattle and pig clones and hundreds of their progeny, and compared them with values from conventional animals. They measured vitamins A, C, B1, B2, B6 and B12 as well as niacin, pantothenic acid, calcium, iron, phosphorous, zinc, 12 kinds of fatty acids, cholesterol, fat, protein, amino acids and carbohydrates including lactose.
For almost every measure, the values were virtually the same. The few that differed were still within the range considered normal.
Separately, the agency looked at studies in which milk and meat from clones were fed to animals for up to 3 1/2 months. There was no evidence of health effects, allergic reactions or behavioral changes.
In the end, the agency concluded that it did not have enough information to rule on the safety of food from cloned sheep. It also decided that edible products from newborn cattle clones, which often are metabolically unstable, "may pose some very limited human food consumption risk."
But it found no safety hazards for meat from healthy cattle clones more than a few weeks old, milk from cloned cows, or meat from cloned pigs or goats of any age.
"Food from cattle, swine, and goat clones is as safe to eat as that from their more conventionally-bred counterparts," the FDA risk assessment concludes.
Looking ahead, the report says FDA is collaborating with veterinary and scientific organizations, notably the International Embryo Transfer Society, to create a database on the health of new clones, which will help the agency track the field as the industry grows.
Working with the FDA, the International Embryo Transfer Society is also creating the first manual of animal care standards for clones, to be made available to farmers and the public later this year.
Copyright 2008 The Washington Post Company
http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=22663416
The bottom line for consumers is that the long term effects of eating cloned foods is simply not known, but any honest scientist will tell you that tinkering with nature in this way can potentially lead to dangerous and unpredictable consequences. It is a verified fact that cloned animals have more health problems than those that are naturally bred. So in essence, the FDA is putting their stamp of approval on the consumption of foods made from diseased livestock. This leaves them an open door to justify further use of toxic chemicals, drugs and additives so that the health and safety of cloned foods can be controlled.
Considering their track record of half-truths and pandering to special interest groups, you can be sure that this was not a scientifically objective decision on the FDAs part, especially when you factor in the amount of money at stake. As I always say, just follow the money. As we move closer to a nation and a world where health freedoms are a thing of the past, the control of resources such as the food supply and other natural substances will become increasingly common.
We are to the point where backyard gardens, container gardening, farmers markets and a relationship with a good dairy farmer are becoming essential if you value unadulterated food. Even though most of the country is in the midst of winter, spring is right around the corner. Do your gardening research now and begin to make plans for your organic garden - whether you are a seasoned gardener or a timid beginner - you will be doing one of the best things for your familys health and well-being.And one more thing. Every child should have the opportunity to experience Gardening 101! Be sure to include your children in your gardening adventures and your trips to the farmers markets and dairies. We must realize the importance of teaching our children how to eat and live healthy. Most children have no idea about how vegetables actually make it to the grocery store because they have never seen a garden! Knowing the ins and outs of gardening is a huge step in giving them valuable lessons concerning living naturally and toxin-free in a VERY toxic world.
FDA says clones are safe for food
A long-awaited final report from the Food and Drug Administration concludes that foods from healthy cloned animals and their offspring are as safe as those from ordinary animals, effectively removing the last U.S. regulatory barrier to the marketing of meat and milk from cloned cattle, pigs and goats.
The 968-page "final risk assessment," not yet released but obtained by The Washington Post, finds no evidence to support opponents' concerns that food from clones may harbor hidden risks.
But, recognizing that a majority of consumers are wary of food from clones -- and that cloning could undermine the wholesome image of American milk and meat -- the agency report includes hundreds of pages of raw data so that others can see how it came to its conclusions.
The report also acknowledges that human health concerns are not the only issues raised by the emergence of cloned farm animals.
"Moral, religious and ethical concerns . . . have been raised," the agency notes in a document accompanying the report. But the risk assessment is "strictly a science-based evaluation," it reports, because the agency is not authorized by law to consider those issues.
In practice, it will be years before foods from clones make their way to store shelves in appreciable quantities, in part because the clones themselves are too valuable to slaughter or milk. Instead, the pricey animals -- replicas of some of the finest farm animals ever born -- will be used primarily as breeding stock to create what proponents say will be a new generation of superior farm animals.
When food from those animals hits the market, the public may yet have its say. FDA officials have said they do not expect to require food from clones to be labeled as such, but they may allow foods from ordinary animals to be labeled as not from clones.
Opponents express dismay
Opponents of the approval, including some concerned about the welfare of the clones themselves, expressed dismay upon learning about the FDA's intentions.
Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety, a Washington advocacy group that petitioned FDA to restrict the sale of food from clones, said his group is considering legal action.
"One of the amazing things about this," Mendelson said, "is that at a time when we have a readily acknowledged crisis in our food safety system, the FDA is spending its resources and energy and political capital on releasing a safety assessment for something that no one but a handful of companies wants."
Others countered that public opinion and politics should play no bigger role in the decision on clones than it should in the approval of a drug or a contraceptive.
"In fact, cloned animals have been studied much more than naturally produced animals," said Cindy Tian, who has analyzed milk and meat from clones at the University of Connecticut. "We have more data on them than for any other animal that we eat."
Release of the analysis was slowed for years by several forces, including the dairy industry, concerned about the potential impact on exports of U.S. whey solids, foreign sales of which are growing for use as a protein supplement.
In the past month, as an announcement neared, members of Congress, led by Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), sought to delay approval through legislation.
Trade-related agencies including the Foreign Agricultural Service and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, which for years have struggled to get countries to accept U.S. gene-altered crops, also raised red flags.
A final blitz of meetings with FDA officials last week brought grudging acquiescence, insiders said. And it is possible, sources said, that even after the risk analysis is released, there will be calls for farmers to voluntarily refrain from selling products from clones until the trade issues can be resolved.
Challenges to assessing risk
To create its final risk assessment, the FDA gathered data on nearly all of the more than 600 U.S. farm-animal clones produced and hundreds of their offspring, as well as many from overseas. But it faced challenges in the process.
Those animals were made by scientists scattered among various universities and companies using different methods that in many cases were difficult to compare.
Moreover, many of those animals were not just clones but also had genes added to them for projects unrelated to food production.
In those cases, it was difficult for FDA reviewers to decide whether any problems were caused by those animals being clones or by their particular genetic alterations. (The FDA has said it will not approve gene-altered animals as food without additional tests for safety.)
Finally, there was the overarching problem of deciding which measures would best predict whether the food was safe. Most puzzling was whether to take into account the subtle alterations in gene activity, called epigenetic changes, that are common in clones as a result of having just one parent.
In the end, facing the reality that epigenetics have never been a factor in assessing the wholesomeness of food, agency scientists decided to use the same simple but effective standard used by farmers since the dawn of agriculture: If a farm animal appears in all respects to be healthy, then presume that food from that animal is safe to eat.
Scientists inside and outside the agency studied thousands of pages of veterinary reports describing weight, size, organ function, blood characteristics and other measures of clones and offspring. For cattle -- the animals for which the most data exist -- full health assessments were conducted for each of five different stages of the animals' life: fetal, newborn, juvenile, sexually mature, and old.
Newborn cattle often unhealthy
They concluded that newborn cattle are often unhealthy, probably because of epigenetic changes. They are usually extremely overweight and have respiratory, gastrointestinal and immune system problems. (Cloned pigs and goats are mostly healthy from the start.)
But those problems typically disappear within the first weeks or months of life as the animals somehow compensate. And since sick clones would not pass muster with food inspectors any more than sick conventional animals would, they pose no concern, the report says.
Studies of cloned farm animal behavior, including mating behavior, also showed them to be the same as ordinary animals. (One exception: On one farm, clones showed a peculiar preference not for the surrogate mother that gave birth to them but to the animal from which they were cloned.)
Scientists also looked at nutrient levels in meat and milk from a few dozen cattle and pig clones and hundreds of their progeny, and compared them with values from conventional animals. They measured vitamins A, C, B1, B2, B6 and B12 as well as niacin, pantothenic acid, calcium, iron, phosphorous, zinc, 12 kinds of fatty acids, cholesterol, fat, protein, amino acids and carbohydrates including lactose.
For almost every measure, the values were virtually the same. The few that differed were still within the range considered normal.
Separately, the agency looked at studies in which milk and meat from clones were fed to animals for up to 3 1/2 months. There was no evidence of health effects, allergic reactions or behavioral changes.
In the end, the agency concluded that it did not have enough information to rule on the safety of food from cloned sheep. It also decided that edible products from newborn cattle clones, which often are metabolically unstable, "may pose some very limited human food consumption risk."
But it found no safety hazards for meat from healthy cattle clones more than a few weeks old, milk from cloned cows, or meat from cloned pigs or goats of any age.
"Food from cattle, swine, and goat clones is as safe to eat as that from their more conventionally-bred counterparts," the FDA risk assessment concludes.
Looking ahead, the report says FDA is collaborating with veterinary and scientific organizations, notably the International Embryo Transfer Society, to create a database on the health of new clones, which will help the agency track the field as the industry grows.
Working with the FDA, the International Embryo Transfer Society is also creating the first manual of animal care standards for clones, to be made available to farmers and the public later this year.
Copyright 2008 The Washington Post Company
http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=22663416
Thursday, January 17, 2008
New Philosophy in Gym Class Teaches a Lifestyle of Activity
Physical Education class in school is generally something that kids either love or hate. The athletic ones thrive on competition and excel as the stars of the team sports. On the other hand, children who are overweight or uncoordinated are often exposed to ridicule and humiliation because of their inability to keep up or perform well.
However, it appears a new type of gym teacher is on the horizon in many schools today, one who encourages individual effort and the development of exercise habits over the virtues of athletic prowess. Not only does this lower the stress for students who have a hard time with sports, but it may just encourage them to embrace physical activity rather than be repulsed by it. Researchers who have instituted this attitude shift in the way PE is taught are hoping it will lead young people to adopt an active lifestyle that will stay with them all throughout their lives.
There is nothing inherently wrong with competition. However, the importance of combating the trend amongst our children to be sedentary and obese far outweighs the benefits of team sports. Perhaps this new way of looking at physical education will play a role in turning the tide of unhealthy lifestyles by establishing new patterns of wellness in upcoming generations.
By the way, if the elementary school that your children or grandchildren attend does not have an organized PE class in addition to recess every day, please rally up support and go to the school board. Not only do children need the physical activity, but they also need to be able to run off energy and gain the benefits from sunshine that their bodies need. It is healing and healthy!
PE: Focus on Exercise, Not Team Sports
Last Updated: 1/14/2008 4:37:56 PM
RICHARDSON, Texas (AP) - With music pumping in the background, the kids in Terry Wade's physical education class are in constant motion, going from sit-ups to jumping jacks to curls with light weights.
After their 45-minute session, the sixth-graders who are sweating the most, or as Wade calls it, "burning butter," get stickers.
"My main goal and emphasis is getting these kids up and moving," said Wade, who teaches at Northrich Elementary in the Richardson school district in suburban Dallas. "It's 'Can this kid do this for a lifetime?' I don't care how good they are. I care if they're having fun."
Instead of team sports, Wade and other physical education teachers across the country are focusing more on individual activities that students can incorporate into their lives long after their school days are over.
Experts say the shift also helps gym teachers include children who are struggling with their weight. With individual activities, overweight students can work at their own pace, and not be left on the sidelines. And they can take part in lower impact activities like weightlifting, yoga or martial arts.
"Now we organize our classes in such a way where no kids are sitting," said Susan Henderson, coordinator for physical education and health for the Dallas-area Mesquite school district.
She said that even if the lesson is about a team sport like football, they focus on skills like passing the ball.
"Nobody is waiting their turn," Henderson said.
Steve Jefferies, head of the department of health, human performance and nutrition at Central Washington University in Ellensburg, Wash., is a fan of treasure hunts and other activities that students can do without realizing they are getting exercise. That shifts the focus to finding things, not the half-mile walk to get there, he said.
Jefferies suggests teachers wear a weight belt to get an idea of what an overweight student experiences.
"You've got to find something that each individual person enjoys," said Jefferies, who also runs a Web site to help physical education teachers keep up with the latest developments.
Gym teachers also are placing a greater emphasis on general health and nutrition, said Craig Buschner, president of the National Association for Sport and Physical Education.
"This field had to make changes. It's not about dodge ball and it's not about duck-duck-goose," said Buschner. He added that the obesity epidemic has helped educators make a case that students need more physical education time.
How to deal with overweight children in class is something that's on the minds of future gym teachers, too.
"My undergraduates are asking 'What do I do?'" said Josh Trout, of California State University, Chico, who has written a book set to be released in February called "Supersized PE: A Comprehensive Guidebook for Teaching Overweight Students."
Wade said she walks a fine line when instructing her students: "I don't want to push anyone past what they're capable of doing, but I don't want them to take it too easy."
As the morning light poured in from the windows in her gym, she asked her sixth-graders: "How are you graded in this class?"
A chorus of replies comes quickly: "Effort."
However, it appears a new type of gym teacher is on the horizon in many schools today, one who encourages individual effort and the development of exercise habits over the virtues of athletic prowess. Not only does this lower the stress for students who have a hard time with sports, but it may just encourage them to embrace physical activity rather than be repulsed by it. Researchers who have instituted this attitude shift in the way PE is taught are hoping it will lead young people to adopt an active lifestyle that will stay with them all throughout their lives.
There is nothing inherently wrong with competition. However, the importance of combating the trend amongst our children to be sedentary and obese far outweighs the benefits of team sports. Perhaps this new way of looking at physical education will play a role in turning the tide of unhealthy lifestyles by establishing new patterns of wellness in upcoming generations.
By the way, if the elementary school that your children or grandchildren attend does not have an organized PE class in addition to recess every day, please rally up support and go to the school board. Not only do children need the physical activity, but they also need to be able to run off energy and gain the benefits from sunshine that their bodies need. It is healing and healthy!
PE: Focus on Exercise, Not Team Sports
Last Updated: 1/14/2008 4:37:56 PM
RICHARDSON, Texas (AP) - With music pumping in the background, the kids in Terry Wade's physical education class are in constant motion, going from sit-ups to jumping jacks to curls with light weights.
After their 45-minute session, the sixth-graders who are sweating the most, or as Wade calls it, "burning butter," get stickers.
"My main goal and emphasis is getting these kids up and moving," said Wade, who teaches at Northrich Elementary in the Richardson school district in suburban Dallas. "It's 'Can this kid do this for a lifetime?' I don't care how good they are. I care if they're having fun."
Instead of team sports, Wade and other physical education teachers across the country are focusing more on individual activities that students can incorporate into their lives long after their school days are over.
Experts say the shift also helps gym teachers include children who are struggling with their weight. With individual activities, overweight students can work at their own pace, and not be left on the sidelines. And they can take part in lower impact activities like weightlifting, yoga or martial arts.
"Now we organize our classes in such a way where no kids are sitting," said Susan Henderson, coordinator for physical education and health for the Dallas-area Mesquite school district.
She said that even if the lesson is about a team sport like football, they focus on skills like passing the ball.
"Nobody is waiting their turn," Henderson said.
Steve Jefferies, head of the department of health, human performance and nutrition at Central Washington University in Ellensburg, Wash., is a fan of treasure hunts and other activities that students can do without realizing they are getting exercise. That shifts the focus to finding things, not the half-mile walk to get there, he said.
Jefferies suggests teachers wear a weight belt to get an idea of what an overweight student experiences.
"You've got to find something that each individual person enjoys," said Jefferies, who also runs a Web site to help physical education teachers keep up with the latest developments.
Gym teachers also are placing a greater emphasis on general health and nutrition, said Craig Buschner, president of the National Association for Sport and Physical Education.
"This field had to make changes. It's not about dodge ball and it's not about duck-duck-goose," said Buschner. He added that the obesity epidemic has helped educators make a case that students need more physical education time.
How to deal with overweight children in class is something that's on the minds of future gym teachers, too.
"My undergraduates are asking 'What do I do?'" said Josh Trout, of California State University, Chico, who has written a book set to be released in February called "Supersized PE: A Comprehensive Guidebook for Teaching Overweight Students."
Wade said she walks a fine line when instructing her students: "I don't want to push anyone past what they're capable of doing, but I don't want them to take it too easy."
As the morning light poured in from the windows in her gym, she asked her sixth-graders: "How are you graded in this class?"
A chorus of replies comes quickly: "Effort."
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Food Recalls: Why All the Secrecy?
With 2007 setting a record for the number of food product recalls in the US, one would think the agencies responsible for protecting us from contaminated foods would pick up the pace a bit and become even more vigilant regarding the welfare of consumers when it comes to food safety. However, this does not appear to be the case. Not only is our food becoming more and more adulterated through GMO, pesticides, herbicides, hormones, and antibiotics, but now we must deal with not being told when food has been compromised to the extent to where it could produce illness. The first major recall of 2008 was announced last week, involving over 90 tons of ground beef, and yet the health officials involved are refusing to name restaurants or other establishments that are suspected of purchasing and potentially serving the contaminated meat. To make matters worse, the company that processed the meat has been involved in two additional recalls in the last twelve years.
It seems it would be a no-brainer to alert the public as to where they may possibly be exposed to these tainted products. But for no logical reason, federal and state agencies are dragging their feet about disclosing any information they may have. Apparently officials are more worried about protecting the rights of businesses that may or may not have served food laced with E. coli bacteria, than they are about you or I being exposed to this potentially life threatening toxin. This is just another example of the cat and mouse games that authorities often play when it comes to our rights to know all the facts regarding the safety of food, drugs, and other consumer products. It is also another huge reason to be sure you know the source of your meat, purchase organic meat and other foods, and eat as close to natural as possible.
Federal and State Regulators Play a High-Risk Game with US Consumers
By E. coli Lawyer
Jan 14, 2008 - 10:37:30 AM
Another E. coli Outbreak: Federal and State Regulators Play a High-Risk Game with US Consumers
SEATTLE, Wa ----- Public health officials in Washington DC, California and Wisconsin are playing a dangerous game with American consumers by refusing to reveal the specific stores or restaurants that may have served meat contaminated by toxic E. coli, says the Seattle lawyer who represents victims of food-borne illness.
'The public needs to know who may have poisoned their kids,' said Bill Marler, managing partner of the Marler Clark law firm in Seattle.
Marler spoke up Sunday after health officials revealed that 188,000 pounds of ground beef was being recalled by the Rochester Meat Company, a Minnesota firm, because it has been contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. This appears to be the first major recall of 2008. 2007 set a recent record for recalls - topping twenty recalls of over 33 million pounds of meat.
While announcing the nationwide recall, officials have refused to reveal the name of the restaurant or other outlets believed to have served the meat to consumers. That, Marler says, means that consumers who may be at risk of contracting potentially fatal food-poisoning have no way of knowing - until they get sick.
He called on Dr. Richard A. Raymond, head of Federal Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS), Kevin R. Hayden, secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services, and Dr. Mark Horton, director of the California Department of Public Health, to immediately disclose the names and locations of retail outlets that have been associated with the contaminated meat.
The Federal Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS) persuaded Rochester Meat Company to issue the recall after investigations revealed that at least six people have been sickened in Wisconsin and California.
'We are hearing from the environmental health community that a national chain restaurant, or restaurants are connected with this recall,' Marler said. 'If so, these public officials are playing a very dangerous game. They are betting that nobody else gets sick because they had no way of knowing they were at risk.'
Marler said there are indications that state officials know of one or more restaurants where contaminated meat has been served and where consumers already have been sickened. 'The public has a right to know the name of that establishment and its involved locations, ' said Marler. ' If more than one is involved, the public has a right to know that too.'
E. coli O157:H7 is a toxic bacteria that shows up in the intestines of cows, where it can infect ground beef or many other food products. In recent years, outbreaks of E. coli have sickened thousands of people in virtually every state, and killed dozens. Young children and elderly with compromised immune systems are particularly at risk.
The recalled ground beef was produced on October 30, 2007 and November 6, 2007 for sale to restaurants and food service institutions. The restaurants have been serving ground beef supplied by a company with a history of E. coli problems, Marler said. This is the third recall of ground beef by the Minnesota firm since 1996. Its previous recalls were for 152,000 pounds and 30,000 pounds, according to FSIS records. Only a fraction of the contaminated beef was recovered in those recalls.
http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/L_aws_amp_P_olitics_42/011410372008_Federal_and_State_Regulators_Play_a_High-Risk_Game_with_US_Consumers.shtml
It seems it would be a no-brainer to alert the public as to where they may possibly be exposed to these tainted products. But for no logical reason, federal and state agencies are dragging their feet about disclosing any information they may have. Apparently officials are more worried about protecting the rights of businesses that may or may not have served food laced with E. coli bacteria, than they are about you or I being exposed to this potentially life threatening toxin. This is just another example of the cat and mouse games that authorities often play when it comes to our rights to know all the facts regarding the safety of food, drugs, and other consumer products. It is also another huge reason to be sure you know the source of your meat, purchase organic meat and other foods, and eat as close to natural as possible.
Federal and State Regulators Play a High-Risk Game with US Consumers
By E. coli Lawyer
Jan 14, 2008 - 10:37:30 AM
Another E. coli Outbreak: Federal and State Regulators Play a High-Risk Game with US Consumers
SEATTLE, Wa ----- Public health officials in Washington DC, California and Wisconsin are playing a dangerous game with American consumers by refusing to reveal the specific stores or restaurants that may have served meat contaminated by toxic E. coli, says the Seattle lawyer who represents victims of food-borne illness.
'The public needs to know who may have poisoned their kids,' said Bill Marler, managing partner of the Marler Clark law firm in Seattle.
Marler spoke up Sunday after health officials revealed that 188,000 pounds of ground beef was being recalled by the Rochester Meat Company, a Minnesota firm, because it has been contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. This appears to be the first major recall of 2008. 2007 set a recent record for recalls - topping twenty recalls of over 33 million pounds of meat.
While announcing the nationwide recall, officials have refused to reveal the name of the restaurant or other outlets believed to have served the meat to consumers. That, Marler says, means that consumers who may be at risk of contracting potentially fatal food-poisoning have no way of knowing - until they get sick.
He called on Dr. Richard A. Raymond, head of Federal Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS), Kevin R. Hayden, secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services, and Dr. Mark Horton, director of the California Department of Public Health, to immediately disclose the names and locations of retail outlets that have been associated with the contaminated meat.
The Federal Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS) persuaded Rochester Meat Company to issue the recall after investigations revealed that at least six people have been sickened in Wisconsin and California.
'We are hearing from the environmental health community that a national chain restaurant, or restaurants are connected with this recall,' Marler said. 'If so, these public officials are playing a very dangerous game. They are betting that nobody else gets sick because they had no way of knowing they were at risk.'
Marler said there are indications that state officials know of one or more restaurants where contaminated meat has been served and where consumers already have been sickened. 'The public has a right to know the name of that establishment and its involved locations, ' said Marler. ' If more than one is involved, the public has a right to know that too.'
E. coli O157:H7 is a toxic bacteria that shows up in the intestines of cows, where it can infect ground beef or many other food products. In recent years, outbreaks of E. coli have sickened thousands of people in virtually every state, and killed dozens. Young children and elderly with compromised immune systems are particularly at risk.
The recalled ground beef was produced on October 30, 2007 and November 6, 2007 for sale to restaurants and food service institutions. The restaurants have been serving ground beef supplied by a company with a history of E. coli problems, Marler said. This is the third recall of ground beef by the Minnesota firm since 1996. Its previous recalls were for 152,000 pounds and 30,000 pounds, according to FSIS records. Only a fraction of the contaminated beef was recovered in those recalls.
http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/L_aws_amp_P_olitics_42/011410372008_Federal_and_State_Regulators_Play_a_High-Risk_Game_with_US_Consumers.shtml
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Health Benefits of Family Meals
A study released recently links the practice of eating together as a family with a lowered incidence of eating disorders amongst teenage girls, and with better nutritional choices that discourage the poor habits often associated with such disorders.
Despite the evidence that pointed to an increase in such behaviors for boys who participated in family meal time, the overall lesson to be learned remains the same, providing that the family culture and environment are ones that encourage a dietary lifestyle that leads toward good health. Parents and other family members are probably the most influential sources over children when it comes to learning how to eat wholesomely and make positive choices that will help to establish lifelong patterns of wellness.
The practice of family meal time is also an excellent example of natural, non-invasive procedures that are much more beneficial for fighting disease, including eating disorders, than the harmful drugs that are likely to be prescribed by conventional health care providers.
Family meals curb girls' eating disorder risk
But study has strange twist: The opposite effect is seen in boys
Reuters
updated 4:18 p.m. CT, Wed., Jan. 9, 2008
Sitting down for regular family meals may protect teen girls from developing eating disorders, according to a new study published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.
Dr. Dianne Neumark-Sztainer and colleagues from the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis found that adolescent girls who ate five or more meals each week with their families were approximately one third less likely to engage in extreme weight control behaviors, such as making themselves vomit, taking diet pills and abusing diuretics or laxatives than girls who ate less frequently with their families.
Some studies have suggested that family meals may help shield girls from developing unhealthy or extreme weight control behaviors, Neumark-Sztainer and her colleagues note, but this research has only looked at a single time point or has relied on past recall of eating habits.
To better understand the relationship, the researchers analyzed results of the Project EAT (Eating Among Teens) Study, in which 2,516 adolescent boys and girls completed a questionnaire in 1999 and 2004. The researchers hypothesized that study participants who reported eating more frequent family meals at the first assessment would be less likely to report disordered eating behavior five years later.
For girls, this was indeed the case; family meals reduced the likelihood of extreme weight control behaviors. But the link with binge eating, chronic dieting or unhealthy weight control behaviors, such as smoking, skipping meals, or fasting, wasn't statistically significant after the researchers adjusted for other factors that could account for the relationship.
However, the researchers found that boys who ate with their families more often were actually at increased risk of unhealthy weight control behaviors. They speculate that boys who eat regularly with their families may have certain characteristics that predispose them to unhealthy eating habits, or that eating with family somehow benefits girls more than it does boys.
Past research has identified a number of benefits of family meals, the researchers note; however, the way that some families interact at mealtimes can actually promote unhealthy eating habits, they add.
"Health care professionals have an important role to play in reinforcing the benefits of family meals, helping families set realistic goals for increasing family meal frequency given schedules of adolescents and their parents, exploring ways to enhance the atmosphere at family meals with adolescents, and discussing strategies for creating healthful and easy-to-prepare family meals," Neumark-Sztainer and her colleagues conclude.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22575582/
Despite the evidence that pointed to an increase in such behaviors for boys who participated in family meal time, the overall lesson to be learned remains the same, providing that the family culture and environment are ones that encourage a dietary lifestyle that leads toward good health. Parents and other family members are probably the most influential sources over children when it comes to learning how to eat wholesomely and make positive choices that will help to establish lifelong patterns of wellness.
The practice of family meal time is also an excellent example of natural, non-invasive procedures that are much more beneficial for fighting disease, including eating disorders, than the harmful drugs that are likely to be prescribed by conventional health care providers.
Family meals curb girls' eating disorder risk
But study has strange twist: The opposite effect is seen in boys
Reuters
updated 4:18 p.m. CT, Wed., Jan. 9, 2008
Sitting down for regular family meals may protect teen girls from developing eating disorders, according to a new study published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.
Dr. Dianne Neumark-Sztainer and colleagues from the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis found that adolescent girls who ate five or more meals each week with their families were approximately one third less likely to engage in extreme weight control behaviors, such as making themselves vomit, taking diet pills and abusing diuretics or laxatives than girls who ate less frequently with their families.
Some studies have suggested that family meals may help shield girls from developing unhealthy or extreme weight control behaviors, Neumark-Sztainer and her colleagues note, but this research has only looked at a single time point or has relied on past recall of eating habits.
To better understand the relationship, the researchers analyzed results of the Project EAT (Eating Among Teens) Study, in which 2,516 adolescent boys and girls completed a questionnaire in 1999 and 2004. The researchers hypothesized that study participants who reported eating more frequent family meals at the first assessment would be less likely to report disordered eating behavior five years later.
For girls, this was indeed the case; family meals reduced the likelihood of extreme weight control behaviors. But the link with binge eating, chronic dieting or unhealthy weight control behaviors, such as smoking, skipping meals, or fasting, wasn't statistically significant after the researchers adjusted for other factors that could account for the relationship.
However, the researchers found that boys who ate with their families more often were actually at increased risk of unhealthy weight control behaviors. They speculate that boys who eat regularly with their families may have certain characteristics that predispose them to unhealthy eating habits, or that eating with family somehow benefits girls more than it does boys.
Past research has identified a number of benefits of family meals, the researchers note; however, the way that some families interact at mealtimes can actually promote unhealthy eating habits, they add.
"Health care professionals have an important role to play in reinforcing the benefits of family meals, helping families set realistic goals for increasing family meal frequency given schedules of adolescents and their parents, exploring ways to enhance the atmosphere at family meals with adolescents, and discussing strategies for creating healthful and easy-to-prepare family meals," Neumark-Sztainer and her colleagues conclude.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22575582/
Monday, January 14, 2008
Another Attack on Natural Health Freedoms
Last week the FDA began yet another effort to eliminate the availability of natural alternatives to synthetic hormone replacement drugs. As you might expect, it appears that this response is fueled, at least in part, by complaints from Big Pharma. Once again we see the FDA favoring the interests of the corporate pharmaceutical community over the health and welfare of Americans, even thought there has been no proof that bio-identical hormone replacement therapy, when used correctly, is unsafe or harmful. In fact, if we listen to the testimonies of women about symptom relief, just the opposite seems to be true.
This is just the latest episode in our governments attempts to limit the choices we have at our disposal when seeking out natural products, including vitamins, minerals, and non-toxic alternatives to the dangerous drugs the FDA is so fond of. In the article posted below, one telling statement sums up the overall attitude of government officials and many in conventional medicine as well: The FDA encourages patients to use FDA-approved drugs whenever possible. It is clear they would prefer that we not think for ourselves or be proactive in any way about our own wellness, and conveniently forget that their track record in approving safe drugs is less than desirable. The question though is why should we trust their stamp of approval, especially when the trail of evidence is littered with greed, self-serving conflicts of interest, and people who have died from that misplaced trust?
FDA Cracks Down on Custom-Made Hormones
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID
The Associated Press
Wednesday, January 9, 2008; 9:17 PM
WASHINGTON -- Government health officials on Wednesday began cracking down on Internet sales of custom-mixed hormones for menopausal women, a market born when doctors deemed prescription estrogen therapy too risky for many.
But the Food and Drug Administration says these alternative hormone mixes are no safer, and told seven makers to stop selling them.
The FDA said it sent warning letters to the companies saying their claims about the "bio-identical hormone replacement therapy" or BHRT products are not supported by medical evidence and are considered false and misleading.
"We want to assure that Americans receive accurate information about the risks and benefits of drug therapies," Dr. Janet Woodcock, FDA's chief medical officer, said in a statement.
The agency said it is concerned that the claims for safety and effectiveness mislead patients, as well as doctors and other health care professionals.
Compounded drugs are not reviewed by the FDA for safety and effectiveness, and FDA encourages patients to use FDA-approved drugs whenever possible, the agency said.
The warning letters say the pharmacy operations violate federal law by making false and misleading claims about their hormone therapy drugs.
Following a 2002 study that found replacement hormones made by drug companies raised the risk of heart attacks, breast cancer and strokes, many women turned to the estrogen, progesterone and testosterone products sold by compounding pharmacies.
Medical researchers concluded in 2003 that hormone replacement pills should be taken only as a brief treatment to help women weather the worst symptoms of menopause.
The drug company Wyeth later complained to the FDA about the Internet sales of compounded products.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/09/AR2008010902098_pf.html
This is just the latest episode in our governments attempts to limit the choices we have at our disposal when seeking out natural products, including vitamins, minerals, and non-toxic alternatives to the dangerous drugs the FDA is so fond of. In the article posted below, one telling statement sums up the overall attitude of government officials and many in conventional medicine as well: The FDA encourages patients to use FDA-approved drugs whenever possible. It is clear they would prefer that we not think for ourselves or be proactive in any way about our own wellness, and conveniently forget that their track record in approving safe drugs is less than desirable. The question though is why should we trust their stamp of approval, especially when the trail of evidence is littered with greed, self-serving conflicts of interest, and people who have died from that misplaced trust?
FDA Cracks Down on Custom-Made Hormones
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID
The Associated Press
Wednesday, January 9, 2008; 9:17 PM
WASHINGTON -- Government health officials on Wednesday began cracking down on Internet sales of custom-mixed hormones for menopausal women, a market born when doctors deemed prescription estrogen therapy too risky for many.
But the Food and Drug Administration says these alternative hormone mixes are no safer, and told seven makers to stop selling them.
The FDA said it sent warning letters to the companies saying their claims about the "bio-identical hormone replacement therapy" or BHRT products are not supported by medical evidence and are considered false and misleading.
"We want to assure that Americans receive accurate information about the risks and benefits of drug therapies," Dr. Janet Woodcock, FDA's chief medical officer, said in a statement.
The agency said it is concerned that the claims for safety and effectiveness mislead patients, as well as doctors and other health care professionals.
Compounded drugs are not reviewed by the FDA for safety and effectiveness, and FDA encourages patients to use FDA-approved drugs whenever possible, the agency said.
The warning letters say the pharmacy operations violate federal law by making false and misleading claims about their hormone therapy drugs.
Following a 2002 study that found replacement hormones made by drug companies raised the risk of heart attacks, breast cancer and strokes, many women turned to the estrogen, progesterone and testosterone products sold by compounding pharmacies.
Medical researchers concluded in 2003 that hormone replacement pills should be taken only as a brief treatment to help women weather the worst symptoms of menopause.
The drug company Wyeth later complained to the FDA about the Internet sales of compounded products.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/09/AR2008010902098_pf.html
Friday, January 11, 2008
Big Pharma Competes for Weight-Loss Sweepstakes
What do pharmaceutical makers have in their bag of tricks for us this year? It appears the big money drug for 2008 is a weight-loss pill that promises people effortless diets that will allow them to lose weight quickly and eat anything they want along the way. All the big guns in the industry are jumping on this bandwagon, as the financial stakes are astronomically high and the competition is formidable.
Let me see if I have this straight. The FDA is working with the drug companies to produce medications that work completely contrary to the natural operations of the body, and helping to convince the American public that these new weight-loss products are safe and beneficial. These are the same bureaucrats that have criminalized the use of cherries and other natural substances by throwing the book at anyone who would dare to claim that such things as vitamins, minerals, fruits, and vegetables may help to prevent and reverse disease.
I encourage any and all of you to slim down using natural, sensible means such as increasing exercise, reducing calories, and eating a whole foods based diet. However, if people buy into the claims of the pharmaceutical companies and their public relations branch the FDA, they will expose themselves to unproven hazards and only worsen their health. I shudder to think of what putting such synthetic substances in the body will do. The sad thing is that fortunes are able to be made from such travesties as these types of drugs simply because most Americans are too lazy to sacrifice and make the necessary lifestyle changes required to lose weight and pursue wellness.
Drugmakers vie for magic weight-loss pill
Consumers willing to pay to shed pounds without dieting and exercise
The Associated Press
updated 1:53 p.m. CT, Thurs., Jan. 3, 2008
NEW YORK - The race for a magic weight-loss pill will heat up in 2008, with several major pharmaceutical companies expected to release key clinical trial data on drugs that appear to generate more weight loss than anything now on the market.
The diet industry is a multibillion-dollar enterprise, with companies such as WeightWatchers, Nutrisystem and Medifast kicking off the year by marketing diet and behavioral changes to consumers who have made losing weight their top New Year's resolution.
But the quest hasn't abated for a long-term weight-loss solution in the form of a pill capable of solving the nation's growing obesity epidemic.
In the U.S., Europe and Japan, the market for weight-loss drugs totaled about $600 million in 2005, and is expected to surge globally to roughly $2 billion in 2010, according to a recent report from drug industry market information provider Espicom Healthcare Intelligence.
Billions of dollars at stakeClearly people will pay whatever it takes to lose weight without restrictive diets and exercise, and the company that can make that happen could bring in billions.
"Doctors and patients tell us there is tremendous interest in a medicine that can provide safe, double-digit weight loss," said Daniel M. Bradbury, president and chief executive of San Diego-based Amylin Pharmaceuticals Inc., which is heavily pursuing drugs for obesity.
About half a dozen drugs are currently available by prescription for weight loss and obesity including Roche Laboratories Inc.'s Xenical and Abbott Laboratories' Meridia. But weight loss with current drugs is rarely more than 10 percent, and these products can cause unpleasant side effects.
British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline had some success in 2007 with its over-the-counter weight-loss drug Alli, which like Xenical eliminates a portion of ingested fat before it can be stored in the body. Glaxo reported third-quarter sales of its over-the-counter drugs grew 24 percent to $827.5 million, boosted in part by the launch of Alli in the U.S.
But competition is rising, with at least 30 companies now targeting the market, particularly with combinations of drugs currently for sale. Pfizer Inc. and Bristol-Squibb recently teamed up to develop DGAT-1 inhibitors, or compounds that target the DGAT enzyme critical to the creation of triglycerides and fat storage. Other vying for a piece of the obesity drug market include Orexigen Therapeutics Inc., Novo Nordisk A/S, Merck & Co., Arena Pharmaceuticals Inc., Vivus Inc. and Athersys Inc.
Double-digit weight loss"Overall what we're starting to see is the use of combination products that could approach the levels of efficacy of some surgeries, and that's unprecedented," said Lazard Capital Markets analyst Matthew Osborne in an interview. "If you're seeing greater than 15 to 20 percent weight loss, that is a significant benefit over the existing class of drugs, which show around 5 percent weight loss and short-lived results."
San Diego-based Arena Pharmaceuticals Inc. has an obesity product, Lorcaserin, already in late-stage trials. In March, the company is expected to report critical safety results. The drug, which hasn't shown safety issues so far, has been under intense scrutiny by analysts who are concerned about its marketing viability, since Lorcaserin is said to work similarly to now discontinued Fen-Phen, which caused heart problems.
Meanwhile, Amylin has seen success with its diabetes drug Byetta, after patients reported weight loss as a welcomed side effect, prompting doctors to prescribe it off-label to overweight patients. Amylin now is pursuing another diabetes drug, Symlin (pramlintide), for obesity, in combination with other hormones and already available obesity drugs.
The company expects to complete a midstage study of pramlintide plus leptin in 2008.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22490513/
Let me see if I have this straight. The FDA is working with the drug companies to produce medications that work completely contrary to the natural operations of the body, and helping to convince the American public that these new weight-loss products are safe and beneficial. These are the same bureaucrats that have criminalized the use of cherries and other natural substances by throwing the book at anyone who would dare to claim that such things as vitamins, minerals, fruits, and vegetables may help to prevent and reverse disease.
I encourage any and all of you to slim down using natural, sensible means such as increasing exercise, reducing calories, and eating a whole foods based diet. However, if people buy into the claims of the pharmaceutical companies and their public relations branch the FDA, they will expose themselves to unproven hazards and only worsen their health. I shudder to think of what putting such synthetic substances in the body will do. The sad thing is that fortunes are able to be made from such travesties as these types of drugs simply because most Americans are too lazy to sacrifice and make the necessary lifestyle changes required to lose weight and pursue wellness.
Drugmakers vie for magic weight-loss pill
Consumers willing to pay to shed pounds without dieting and exercise
The Associated Press
updated 1:53 p.m. CT, Thurs., Jan. 3, 2008
NEW YORK - The race for a magic weight-loss pill will heat up in 2008, with several major pharmaceutical companies expected to release key clinical trial data on drugs that appear to generate more weight loss than anything now on the market.
The diet industry is a multibillion-dollar enterprise, with companies such as WeightWatchers, Nutrisystem and Medifast kicking off the year by marketing diet and behavioral changes to consumers who have made losing weight their top New Year's resolution.
But the quest hasn't abated for a long-term weight-loss solution in the form of a pill capable of solving the nation's growing obesity epidemic.
In the U.S., Europe and Japan, the market for weight-loss drugs totaled about $600 million in 2005, and is expected to surge globally to roughly $2 billion in 2010, according to a recent report from drug industry market information provider Espicom Healthcare Intelligence.
Billions of dollars at stakeClearly people will pay whatever it takes to lose weight without restrictive diets and exercise, and the company that can make that happen could bring in billions.
"Doctors and patients tell us there is tremendous interest in a medicine that can provide safe, double-digit weight loss," said Daniel M. Bradbury, president and chief executive of San Diego-based Amylin Pharmaceuticals Inc., which is heavily pursuing drugs for obesity.
About half a dozen drugs are currently available by prescription for weight loss and obesity including Roche Laboratories Inc.'s Xenical and Abbott Laboratories' Meridia. But weight loss with current drugs is rarely more than 10 percent, and these products can cause unpleasant side effects.
British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline had some success in 2007 with its over-the-counter weight-loss drug Alli, which like Xenical eliminates a portion of ingested fat before it can be stored in the body. Glaxo reported third-quarter sales of its over-the-counter drugs grew 24 percent to $827.5 million, boosted in part by the launch of Alli in the U.S.
But competition is rising, with at least 30 companies now targeting the market, particularly with combinations of drugs currently for sale. Pfizer Inc. and Bristol-Squibb recently teamed up to develop DGAT-1 inhibitors, or compounds that target the DGAT enzyme critical to the creation of triglycerides and fat storage. Other vying for a piece of the obesity drug market include Orexigen Therapeutics Inc., Novo Nordisk A/S, Merck & Co., Arena Pharmaceuticals Inc., Vivus Inc. and Athersys Inc.
Double-digit weight loss"Overall what we're starting to see is the use of combination products that could approach the levels of efficacy of some surgeries, and that's unprecedented," said Lazard Capital Markets analyst Matthew Osborne in an interview. "If you're seeing greater than 15 to 20 percent weight loss, that is a significant benefit over the existing class of drugs, which show around 5 percent weight loss and short-lived results."
San Diego-based Arena Pharmaceuticals Inc. has an obesity product, Lorcaserin, already in late-stage trials. In March, the company is expected to report critical safety results. The drug, which hasn't shown safety issues so far, has been under intense scrutiny by analysts who are concerned about its marketing viability, since Lorcaserin is said to work similarly to now discontinued Fen-Phen, which caused heart problems.
Meanwhile, Amylin has seen success with its diabetes drug Byetta, after patients reported weight loss as a welcomed side effect, prompting doctors to prescribe it off-label to overweight patients. Amylin now is pursuing another diabetes drug, Symlin (pramlintide), for obesity, in combination with other hormones and already available obesity drugs.
The company expects to complete a midstage study of pramlintide plus leptin in 2008.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22490513/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
